Last-Ditch Effort: Turn Down the Difficulty

[NEOPARADIGM]

This game employs dynamic strategies, gentlemen. It also features a push-pull momentum system, home field advantage effects, and, of course, a truckload of player-ratings – everything from awareness to footwork to play-recognition to brute strength.

On top of this football itself is fairly complex (I hesitate to say extremely so, thinking about the money these big-time coaches and coordinators make). Play-calling is an art. It requires thinking ahead at least one play, and I would guess the truly great ones think ahead much, much further than that. Some of them are probably right there with the world’s great chess players in that respect.

The point is, what we have here is a game, first and foremost. I know people say that all the time, but let’s remember exactly what it means: Wiki says, “A form of play or sport, esp. a competitive one, played according to rules, and decided by skill, strength, or luck.” I’d say with NCAA 12, it would go: a form of competitive electronic play, played according to rules, decided by skill and luck.”

Skill.

Let’s face it: you’re either good at playing NCAA 12 or you’re not. Your QB’s either go 30 for 34 for 350 yards and 4 TD’s with consistency or they don’t. Your timing is either on or off with every button press, no different from hitting a baseball. You either held the button too long, not long enough, or you nailed it. This game is no less precise in its timing windows than MLB The Show or Call of Duty, gentlemen: if you’re complaining about getting picked off, getting pancaked, fumbling, basically anything negative, you might as well be complaining you die a lot in Call of Duty or strike out a lot in The Show. Fact is, it is entirely possible score on every possession you have, and it’s entirely possible to stop your opponent’s every move. 72-0. 744 total yards to negative 7. It’s possible. So what’s the complaining about, again?

Luck.

It’s very easy to forget the “dice roll” aspect of the game. Your timing might be absolutely perfect, but on that particular play, you lost the dice roll: 88 THP wasn’t enough for the throw you wanted, you needed 89; 84 TKL wasn’t enough for that goal line stand, you needed 85. That WR’s route-running is a 57, you never noticed. That 73 OVR cornerback you think your 89 OVR WR should be dusting has a 99 man coverage rating, you never thought to check. That one INT you threw that cost you the game you were so peeved about? Your LT and LG were both cold, but you attempted to throw through their window anyway, and at a hot CB. And that’s when your timing is perfect. There’s also the other 40 plays where your timing wasn’t perfect, and plays where you pointed the stick the wrong way, not once but three times, and where you hit the tackle button so late your grandma could have reacted quicker.

Obviously these scenarios are endless, and obviously it’s impossible to keep track of and be aware of all of them during the course of a game or season. The point is that dice rolls like these are happening all over the field on every play, and they’re influenced by further variables like home-field, momentum, impact players, etc. More importantly, their results are likewise influenced by play-calling, timing, stick skills: if you’ve lost five or six “dice rolls” in a row, you’re either not playing very well (button-mashing through the play-call screen, falling into tendencies you’ve had since 1998, amirite?), or you’re just getting some bad beats – no different from poker, no different from when the ball falls through the gap in the paddles in pinball, no different from when that lucky bastard headshots you from across the map.

It’s not “cheap” when a LB skies to intercept a pass any more than it’s “cheap” when you don’t hit a flush on the river, especially when you look up at the end of the season and you only threw 10 or 12 INTs all year. Conversely, if you’re one the people who’s truly having trouble passing (under 50%, 20+ INTs per year), that’s clearly a skill issue, if not a difficulty-level issue.

In fact, what I have come to believe based on my experience here is that 90% of the people (or at least the 40% of people who do 95% of the complaining) are playing with difficulty settings that are much too hard. Bu-bu-but I want realism! It’s boring to destroy the CPU every game!

This game should not be frustrating. You’re basically given a canvas on which to paint the perfect football team. By year five or six, when you have all your pieces in place, you SHOULD be winning all your games 58-3. Haven’t you been building your team to do just that? Or were you building a program up so that you go 7-5 with a 99-OVR team?

Where the challenge comes in is when the next year you’re forced to replace 16 starters complete with running out a bunch of guys with 48 AWR. Case in point, my current team fell from 99 OVR in year six to 89 OVR in year seven; from being the better team in every game to being rated lower in more than half of them. Add to this I was the #1 team in the country to begin the season, despite being the lowest-rated team in the top 25!

Hello! There’s your challenge right on a tee for you.

Realism? I think complaints in this area are in large part due to overlooking just how good an 85-OVR team is, let alone how good a 99 OVR team is. What I mean is, you look up and down some of these “all time” rosters, what is everyone rated? When you peruse your depth chart of your year-four or five squad and there’s 8 or 9 guys rated 90 or higher, there’s a chance you’re playing with the best team in your school’s history and not even noticing.

My year-six squad had 9 first-team All-Americans … on the defense. You want “realism”? Want a “challenge”? Try not allowing a single point all year when you get a team like that. Of course it didn’t happen for me, and in fact that team didn’t even finish undefeated; I allowed 21 points three times. Disgrace, I say.

The following year, as I said, I lost everyone. Started the year 1-2 to boot.

My point is that the game is designed to be competitively dynamic in this way. What you don’t want is sliders or settings that are so hard even your 99-OVR teams have trouble on defense and your 99-OVR quarterbacks are throwing 20 INTs.

Think about how 82-OVR is the benchmark for incoming freshmen. 82 means they can play right away, and might even be stars that first year. So when you’re fielding a team where every starter is rated 82 and higher, you’re already talking about realistically being a decent team. So when you take that 94-OVR year-five team in to face your big rival, there’s no shame in wiping their face in the mud, 55-6. Because guess what? In three years you’re gonna be 1-2 with a 89-OVR team, faced with playing a 99-OVR team that’s unranked. Good luck moving up in the polls, if you even win the game.

The competitive part, the “simulation” part, the realistic part, comes in those little details. All you need is for your settings to be difficult enough so that you’re not averaging 10 yards per carry on the ground. I’m talking Varsity default with maybe CPU run defense at 100, tackling at 100 too if you’re feeling confident. In fact, I’d challenge anyone to play a full season of default Freshman with CPU sliders at 100. It will not be the cakewalk you might think it is, and will allow you to truly see just how good you are.

Can you do something like get your TE to 1,000 yards?

Two backs over 1,000 yards?

Starting QB for 3,000 yards and 30 scores with under 5 INTs?

Backup QB with meaningful minutes, adding another few hundred yards, 5 scores, and zero INTs?

#1 defense against both the pass and run?

#1 on offense and defense, undefeated, with no team scoring more than 10 points?

These are just some examples of what your team SHOULD be doing if and when it’s put together the way you want it. I mean, you build this team in the image of the ‘95 Huskers, but then bemoan the fact you’re gaining 350 yards on the ground every game.

I think we’re almost done. Thanks if you’re still reading. I’m driving at the fact that, in my opinion, the negative culture surrounding this game and this forum is directly attributable to the attitude and psychology (the approach) of the people playing the game, and, moreover, that the bulk of the frustrations surrounding gameplay are attributable to people 1) not paying close enough attention to the details of what’s happening on the screen, button-mashing the play-call screen, not noticing what is user error and what isn’t, etc., and 2) people playing with difficulty settings that are much too hard, with the subconscious thought that winning is really not what they want to accomplish; they want to accomplish “good games.”

The thesis here would be that “good games” are what happen anyway when you play to win, precisely because of the variables involved from dice-rolls to the rest of it.

That’s not “comeback AI,” it’s you losing focus. That’s not a “cheap” INT, it’s you making a bad read.

I mean, really, let’s call a spade a spade here: are you that much of a scrub you can’t stop the CPU? Well, you “can,” but you choose to play on a difficulty setting where it’s super tough? Um, okay. You COULD go 40 for 46 for 556 and 7 scores, but that’s “cheese,” right? So you up the difficulty to the point where you’re complaining about throwing picks, getting pancaked every play, and the AI QB tearing you a new one.



Just trying to help.

Cheers, my dudes.

[NoDakHusker]

This is front page material. Great read.

[JerseySuave4]

i agree with a lot of what you said. If some people don't have success with something they chalk it off as a bug or glitch.

[BlastX21]

You make a lot of good points. However, you seem to be indicating that most of the time, "cheap picks" or "unrealistic coverage/swats" or "comeback AI" is more a product of user error than game issues. Its not. DB's are in fact not bound to the same laws of physics receivers are. Linebackers do in fact time their swats too perfectly. The AI does play unrealistically well once they get behind a lot. Changing the difficulty does not change any of these issues. Furthermore, these aren't things the user can control. Even if I make a perfect throw, and win the "die roll" you refer to which should let my receiver separate from the corner, I can still get picked because the DB doesn't need any time to make a cut whereas the WR does, giving the DB an instant advantage that is not the product of difficulty.

There are plenty of other issues that aren't user-related. Unrealistic interceptions and unrealistic play in general exists. Nobody should deny that.

I do agree with your point about dominating games though. If you have the #1 team in the country you should feel fine winning by 30 every game.

[psychicDB]

holy long post batman

also, agree with blast

[ucas005]

Agree with some points. Disagree with others. I've never seen a forum explode like the one for NCAA12. I do think people have legit gripes for there to be this many "issue/bug/hate" posts. Look at other forums. MLB The Show, NBA 2K, NHL, etc. These games may not compare in fan base numbers, but the fans of these games are no less passionate and not afraid to voice their opinions. For the most part the forums for these games have a MUCH more positive vibe. I think that vibe tells a lot about the success or lack of success of these titles.

[yourfavestoner]

Great, great post. Agree w/most of it, but not all.

Another example: how many people remember the end of the Utah Jazz/Miami Heat game this year (where freakin' Paul Milsap scored 11 points in 28 seconds to beat Miami). If that had happened on a videogame, you'd curse comeback AI, throw your controller, and rant on the forums.

It's similar to people who complain about officiating. There are so many bad/missed calls for BOTH teams over the course of a game that it ends up evening out. You only notice it when it happens to you. It's sports. Crazy/unpredictable stuff happens ALL THE TIME. Sometimes you're on the lucky side, sometimes you crap out.

[imwhatzup]

That's why I based my slider on ratings and not comparing it to a real game.